Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011) 119–133. © by University .docx

Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011) 119–133. © by University
of Hawai‘i Press. All rights reserved.
Thoughts on Why, How, and
What Buddhists Can Learn
from Christian Theologians
John Makransky
Boston College
With my co-panelists, I am asked to respond to the question:
“Can and should Bud-
dhists and Christians do theology (or Buddhology) together, and
if so why and how?”1
I will respond as a Tibetan Buddhist of Nyingma tradition. My
answer is “yes,” we
can and should, where “doing theology together” for me means
learning things from
Christian theologians that illumine significant aspects of my
Buddhist understand-
ing. How is one to learn things for Buddhist understanding from
Christian theol-
ogy—what method should be used? I find the method of
comparative theology, as
developed recently by scholars such as Francis Clooney and
James Fredericks, to be
a productive approach for interreligious theological learning,
including Christian-
Buddhist learning. But first the question of why must be
addressed: a Buddhist com-
parative theology must be motivated and informed by a theology
of religions that

convincingly articulates for Buddhists why they can learn things
from religious oth-
ers that can make a positive difference for their own
understanding and practice of
awakening.
If the why and how to learn from religious others is well enough
addressed, then
one would have the motivation and orientation to explore
specific Buddhist learnings
from non-Buddhist theologies. In what follows, then, I will
make a start at addressing
the how, why and what of Buddhist interreligious learning by
briefly summarizing the
method of comparative theology, considerations toward
developing a Buddhist theol-
ogy of religions that can support such learning by Buddhists,
and some examples of
Christian themes that have been resources for my own learning.
comparative theology
The purpose of comparative theology is to learn from a different
religious tradition in
enough depth and specificity to shine significant new light on
your own. By paying
careful attention to elements of another religious tradition in
their own context of
doctrine and practice, your perspective on corresponding
elements of your own faith
120 BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
may be shifted in ways that permit new insights to emerge. This

does not merely
involve learning at a distance about other religious beliefs and
cultures that leaves your
own religious self-understanding unaffected. Rather,
comparative theological analysis
provides a method to learn from religious others in specific
ways that newly inform
your understanding of your own faith and may also energize and
deepen your practice
of it.2 For this kind of learning to occur, certain supportive
dispositions are necessary,
such as those identified in Catherine Cornille’s book The Im-
Possibilty of Interreligious
Dialogue. These include: (1) doctrinal humility, the
acknowledgment that the doc-
trinal formulations of your own tradition, including its
formulations of other reli-
gions, are conditioned viewpoints that have never perfectly
captured the whole truth;
(2) knowledgeable commitment to your own religious tradition,
so that whatever
you learn from religious others may inform your religious
community and tradition
through you; and (3) in the context of potential Buddhists
learning from Christians, a
belief that there is enough common ground between Buddhism
and Christianity that
it is possible to hear things from Christians that make a positive
difference for Bud-
dhists in their own understanding and practice of awakening.3
theologies of religions
For such dispositions to support comparative theological
learning, in turn, they must
be motivated and informed by an adequate theology of religions.

A theology of reli-
gions is an understanding of other religious systems that
explores their potential
truth from within the theological framework of your own
religious tradition. You
can, as an individual, learn many things from other religions.
But for your learning
to inform not only yourself but also your religious community
and tradition, it must
make sense to your tradition in its own framework of
understanding. And as Mark
Heim, John Thatamanil, and Kristen Kiblinger have argued,
behind any interest (or
disinterest) in learning from other religions lies a theology of
religions that is either
conscious or unconscious.4 How do I see the potential to learn
significant truths from
religious others? If my theology of religions is uncritically
exclusivist, I may see only
errors in religious others unaware that my perspective on them
is limited by my own
vision. Or if my theology of religions is uncritically pluralist, I
may only hear from
religious others the presumed commonality of religions that I
think I already know.
In either of these cases, new learning is not permitted.5 For
example, if I were to see
an unconditioned truth as the revelatory source of my own
religious tradition while
viewing other religions merely as conditioned human artifacts,
how paltry other reli-
gions’ teachings would appear to me compared to my own. To
support learning for my
religious tradition from a religious other that permits something
really significant and
fresh to be heard, my theology of religions, while rooted in my

own tradition, would
have to see religious others as potential sources of profound
truth, without reducing
them just to what I thought I knew before engaging them.
Diverse theologies of religions are possible for any religious
tradition, and a num-
ber of alternative theologies of religions have been operative
throughout the history
of Buddhism in Asia.6 Below I will offer considerations toward
constructing a con-
BUDDHISTS CAN LEARN FROM CHRISTIAN
THEOLOGIANS 121
temporary Buddhist theology of religions that would support
interreligious learning.
Such a theology of religions, if it is to be taken seriously by
Buddhists, must be based
in fundamental Buddhist understandings of core teachings.
Some of the implications
of those teachings could turn the attention of Buddhists toward
religious others as
potential sources of truth. But such teachings have been
employed traditionally in
ways that orient Buddhists away from the possibility of
religiously important learn-
ing from non-Buddhists. So to explore how core Buddhist
teachings could newly
inform interreligious learning for Buddhists today, I must not
only summarize them
in their traditional forms, but also relate them to experiences of
interreligious learn-
ing today and to current work in theologies of religions.

buddhist theology of religions
Why did the Buddha teach? A principal reason, Buddhists
believe, is that different
spiritual paths taught in the world lead to different spiritual
results, many of which
fall short of complete liberation from the inmost causes of
confusion and suffering.
This, Buddhists believe, compelled the Buddha to “turn the
wheel of the dharma,” to
reintroduce the way of the Buddhas to the world, the way that
leads to inmost libera-
tion, the realization of nirvana. In the Salleka Sutta ascribed to
kyamuni Buddha, the
Buddha describes dozens of ways that religious practitioners,
mostly of non-Buddhist
traditions known in his time, believed they had accomplished
complete liberation
(Skt. mok a), the highest religious end, while falling far short of
it unawares. The Bud-
dha then explains in detail how proper practice of his liberating
path provides a way
to be released from every layer of clinging to conditioned
experience, fully to realize
the freedom of the unconditioned state, nirvana. This is
formulated in Indo-Tibetan
Buddhist traditions like my own as follows: The fullest
realization of reality is a
stable, nondual insight into the empty, unconditioned nature of
all experience—the
emptiness of all conceptualized appearances—accompanied by
an impartial, powerful
compassion for all beings who have not realized the inmost
freedom of such insight.
Any religious beliefs or practices that encourage reifying and

clinging to any concep-
tualization of truth, God, scripture, religious identity, ritual,
religious experience, or
ethical prescription as an ultimate would obstruct realization of
the emptiness of all
such constructed forms, and thus, even in the name of religion,
prevent the attain-
ment of the fullest religious end, the unconstructed,
unconditioned nirvana. Careful
guidance is required to learn to pay such penetrating, stable
attention to experience
that even the subtlest clinging to reified concepts collapses.
The Buddhist understanding that different modes of practice
lead to different
soteriological results and the fullest result can only be attained
by methods appropri-
ate to it (methods that the Buddha imparted) has established the
main purpose for
communicating the Buddha’s teaching in the world.7
In sharp contrast to this foundational Buddhist understanding, a
popular contem-
porary option in theology of religions, developed by John Hick
and others, called
“theological pluralism” asserts the following. Since all great
world religions engage
the same ultimate reality, which they call by different names,
then in spite of their
differences in belief and practice all such religions should lead
to the same essential

realization of that ultimate reality, the same basic salvific
result.8 But as the previous
paragraph implies, to accept that assertion is to put aside a
primary concern of the
Buddha and his followers—to investigate the efficacy of
specific beliefs and practices
promulgated by religions because the results of religious
practice, which could be
inmost liberation or unconscious bondage to suffering in the
name of religion, depend
on the specific functions of those beliefs and practices—not on
a grand narrative of
equality of religions.
Nevertheless, for Buddhist philosophers to assert that different
kinds of spiritual
paths lead to different results does not mean that just one
narrowly specified way of
belief and practice is authentically liberating. Buddhist
traditions have also com-
monly taught that there are many possible modes of learning
and practice that lead
to liberation, not just one way, as exemplified in kyamuni
Buddha’s diverse ways of
guiding different kinds of people in the practices of his
liberating path. This teaching
is the doctrine of skillful means (Skt. up ya-kau alya),
according to which the teach-
ings of the Buddhas are ever adapted to the diverse mentalities
and needs of beings so
as to meet them effectively in their own horizons of
understanding.
In a number of Mah y na Buddhist scriptures that emerged in the
early centuries
ce, such as those of the Avata saka collection, the teaching of

skillful means was
expanded in connection with the cosmic dimension of
Buddhahood, dharmak ya, the
infinite, nondual awareness of the Buddhas that pervades all
reality. The infinite mind
of the Buddhas, these scriptures assert, communicates the
dharma in limitlessly diverse
ways to meet the varied mentalities of beings in all realms of
existence, compas-
sionately entering persons of varied walks of life and religious
culture into dharma
practices conducive to their mundane and supramundane well-
being.9 Indeed, the
skillful means of Buddhahood, in communicating the buddha’s
core teaching of the
Four Noble Truths, goes beyond all established religious
expectations and teaching
norms, including familiar Buddhist ways of expressing those
very truths. As the Avata saka
scripture puts it:
In this world there are four quadrillion names to express the
four holy truths
in accord with the mentalities of beings, to cause them all to be
harmonized
and pacified. . . . [And] just as in this world there are four
quadrillion names
to express the four holy truths, so in all the worlds to the east—
immeasurably
many worlds, in each there are an equal number of names to
express the four
holy truths, to cause all the sentient beings there to be
harmonized and pacified
in accordance with their mentalities. And just as this is so of the
worlds to the
east, so it is with all the infinite worlds in the ten directions.10

Such a scriptural passage implies that it is the infinite mind of
the Buddhas that is the
ultimate ground and source of liberating truth for all peoples,
cultures, and religions,
analogous to the Abrahamic belief in the one God as the
transcendental source of
revelation for all humankind.11
But, from a Buddhist perspective, even if there is one
underlying source for diverse
expressions of truth in the world, it does not necessarily speak
with equal clarity,
THEOLOGIANS 123
depth, and fullness in all the world’s traditions. Even if the
infinite mind of the Bud-
dhas is the ultimate source of liberating truth for all, it is
kyamuni Buddha, many
scriptures proclaim, that is the preeminent manifestation of that
Buddha-knowledge
for this eon. He is the one who has spoken the liberating truth
of dharma with the
greatest specificity, depth, and completeness, with a unique
focus on core liberating
principles that are not as central to other traditions—
foundational Buddhist doc-
trines that proclaim no substantial self in persons and the
emptiness of independent
existence of all phenomena as keys to the deepest liberation of
persons. And it is the
Buddha’s dharma heirs, contained in the sa gha community that

he established, who
uphold this unique teaching for the world.12
For a theology of religions to make sense to Buddhists
(including those in my
Tibetan tradition), the principles summarized in preceding
paragraphs cannot be
ignored. The teaching that Buddhahood employs infinite means
of communication
that transcend the established expectations of all traditions,
including Buddhist ones,
could direct the attention of Buddhists to the possibility of
profound truth in other
religions. So can the Buddhist concern to critically analyze
beliefs and practices of
religious traditions (both Buddhist and non-Buddhist) for
soteriological efficacy. But
the tendency narrowly to identify the primary source of
revelation with kyamuni
Buddha and his community makes it difficult for many
Buddhists to view non-
Buddhist religions as possessing a source of truth comparable to
their own. And the
concern to critically analyze all beliefs is usually marshaled for
Buddhist critiques of
beliefs of religious others (including beliefs of Buddhist
others), not as an analytical
tool to avoid missteps while learning from religious others. The
traditional Buddhist
allergy to the notion of learning important religious things from
religious others,
including Christians, has been exacerbated in the modern period
by the Asian expe-
rience of Western colonialism, which many experienced, in part,
as an aggressive
assault by Christian missionaries on indigenous Asian beliefs in

support of the West-
ern domination of their societies.
The Buddhist principles summarized in this section, as
traditionally employed,
have tended to constrain the possibility of new learning from
religious others by sub-
suming others within a Buddhist system of belief that is
functionally closed to new
input by them. Such principles, then, cannot be drawn on
uncritically if they are to
inform a Buddhist theology of religions today that would
adequately support inter-
religious learning. Yet they must contribute to any theology of
religions that would
make sense to Buddhist traditions, including my tradition of
Tibetan Buddhism.
I believe those principles can be drawn on in fresh ways that
avoid closing off new
learning from religious others, if they are informed by fresh
experience of interreli-
gious learning and by some current work in theologies of
religions.
my buddhist interreligious learning
This section will focus on elements of my learning as a
Buddhist from Christians.
Such learning has reinforced for me the Buddhist understanding
that Buddhahood,
as a source of limitless skillful means, can communicate
through non-Buddhist modes

of teaching in ways that transcend accustomed frames of
reference, including my
conditioned Buddhist expectations. In dialogue and study, I
have encountered Chris-
tians whose spiritual insights and qualities profoundly illumined
my own Buddhist
understanding about which they knew nothing, for example, by
embodying absolute
trust in the ground of being; by recognizing the holy,
sacramental nature of everyday
things; or by vividly expressing the intrinsically communal
nature of spiritual awak-
ening. What follows are examples of a few areas of Christian
theology that are rich
sources of reflection for me. This is not the place to provide
extensive analysis of each,
but to give a fuller sense of my learning process, I will discuss
the first of these areas
at a little more length below.
1. Christian models of atonement include the understanding
that human beings
are not in a position to redeem themselves from sin; rather, God
is the effec-
tive agent of atonement and redemption for humanity. This
expresses what
theologians call an objective aspect of atonement. Christian
concern with salvific
power from beyond the human ego deepens my engagement with
analogous
issues of agency and objectivity implicit, it seems to me, in
elements of Bud-
dhist practice, as in the method of exchanging self for others
(tong-len) central
to Tibetan Buddhism.

2. The Judeo-Christian teaching of absolute surrender in faith
to God as source
and ground of all creation has helped anchor Christian
reflections on poverty
and sacramental vision. Because all beings, as creations of God,
are grounded
in God, to know them in their depth is to know them as visible
manifestations
of grace, as holy beings of immeasurable worth.13 Such
teachings have further
informed and energized my Buddhist understanding of refuge
(in Nyingma
tradition) as absolute surrender to the expanse of openness and
awareness that
is the empty ground of all beings. To be surrendered to that
ground (zhi) is
to be surrendered to the inmost being of persons, a purer vision
of them that
elicits reverence, love, and compassion for them. Articulations
of Christian
sacramental vision have further inspired me, as a Nyingma
Buddhist, to
see persons not as ungrounded, isolated entities of no intrinsic
worth but as
expressions of a primordial ground, embodiments of original
wakefulness and
profound goodness (tath gata-garbha, Buddha-nature), however
obscured that
may be in them by inner tendencies of delusion and grasping.
Christian sacra-
mental teaching somehow further informs and energizes this
Buddhist way of
knowing for me.14
3. The themes above inform (and are informed by) the two

great command-
ments of Matthew 22:36–40. A Pharisee asks Jesus: “Teacher,
which com-
mandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus replies: “‘You shall
love the Lord
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with
all your mind.’
This is the greatest and the first commandment. And a second is
like it: ‘You
shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two
commandments hang all
the law and the prophets.” The New Interpreter’s Bible
comments: “One can-
not first love God and then, as a second task, love one’s
neighbor. To love God
is to love one’s neighbor, and vice versa.”15
The striking equation of the second commandment with the
first has made
me repeatedly reflect (from my Nyingma perspective) on the
relation between
THEOLOGIANS 125
devotion to Buddhahood (dharmak ya, Buddha-nature) as the
empty uncondi-
tioned ground (zhi) of beings and unconditional love for all
those beings. Because
of this connection, to cultivate unconditional love, compassion
and joy in per-
sons empowers and is empowered by increasing surrender to
Buddhahood as
the empty cognizant ground of all persons. This becomes the

unity of wisdom
and love within the bodhisattva path of my tradition. And the
ancient Jewish
term “commandment” in the quote from Matthew points me with
further
depth into the Tibetan concept of dam tsig (samaya), the
exigence of deepest
commitment to the ground and practice of wisdom/love for the
sake of all.
4. Ecclesiology: As Dominican theologian J. M. R. Tillard has
written: “To be
‘in Christ’ is to find oneself under the power of the Spirit of
God that . . . knits
into the unity of one body those who receive the gospel of God.
. . . Whoever
is ‘in Christ’ and ‘in the Spirit’ is never in a relation of one to
one with God.”16
Human participation in God, in this view, is intrinsically
communal,
ecclesiological. The individual is incorporated into the body of
Christ that
reaches out to all in the building of God’s kingdom. One’s
relationship to
God can never be isolated from one’s relation to others in God.
Although communal participation has been a central part of
Buddhist
practice from the beginning, Buddhist communities were
understood as
collections of individuals, following in the Buddha’s footsteps
individually
while guided by common disciplines and rules of living
(dhamma and vinaya).
The rhetoric of path as ontologically individual was retained
even as com-

munal dimensions of path gained increasing emphasis and
centrality in a
number of Buddhist traditions, prominently in Mah y na
movements. And
the Buddhist doctrinal thread of individualism was given
renewed emphasis
in the meeting of Buddhism with the modern West, as it seemed
to match the
intense individualism of Western interest in spirituality.
Nevertheless, “ecclesiological” aspects of Buddhism took
highly developed
doctrinal expression in Mah y na traditions (including my own),
in ways that
indicated the path and fruition of awakening must be understood
as intrinsi-
cally, ontologically communal. Seemingly separate individuals
awaken to a
communal dimension of reality that they were not previously
conscious of,
remaking them into a collective extension of the Buddhas’
liberating activ-
ity on behalf of the world. The ultimate fruition of the
bodhisattva path,
Buddhahood, embodies itself not just as an individual
attainment (rang don,
dharmak ya) but as a power to coalesce communities of
awakening (zhen don,
r pak ya) and to incorporate bodhisattvas into bodies of
Buddhahood—enlight-
ened dimensions known as sambhogak ya and nirm nak ya—as
agents of
enlightened activity for beings.17 But unlike Tillard’s Christian
understand-
ing, bodhisattva path and fruition are intrinsically communal
not because
bodhisattvas are “knit into one body” by a supernatural Spirit,

but because
their practices awaken them in wisdom and love to the
interdependent,
ultimately undivided nature of all beings (undivided suchness,
tathat ).
5. I am struck by the Christian concern with a God of justice,
vividly embodied
in Jesus as the one who challenges oppressive attitudes and
structures with
special attention to the poor and marginalized. It has pushed me
to seek
increased clarity on the meaning of the unconditional
compassion associated
with the bodhisattva path of awakening. The Christian theme
points me back
into Buddhist sources further to observe how bodhisattva
compassion, as an
unconditional expression of wisdom, upholds something in
persons by simul-
taneously confronting something in them. To uphold persons in
their deepest
potential of freedom and goodness is to confront us in all the
ways we hide
from that potential—the individual and social inhibitions and
structures that
prevent us from responding fully to others with reverence and
care. And, to
be pointed by Christian ecclesiological thought to
“ecclesiological” aspects of
Buddhism noted above shifts my understanding of what it means

as a Bud-
dhist to respond to needs of the contemporary world. Instead of
focusing on
individual attempts to address social problems in the context of
each indi-
vidual’s own practice of dharma, we might freshly explore how
communal
dimensions of awakening in Buddhist praxis “knit” Buddhist
individuals and
communities into interconnected, integrated responses of
service and action
that respond to concrete needs and problems of societies and the
natural world.
Each Christian theme above shifts my lens on a corresponding
aspect of Buddhist
thought and practice, shining light on further implications of
corresponding Bud-
dhist themes in their similarity and difference, infusing them
with greater depth and
energy in my understanding and practice. It is as if Buddhahood
is speaking in and
through the Christian mode of expression to empower a deeper
engagement with
Buddhist principles, in ways I had not expected, do not control,
and do not fully
comprehend.
an objective aspect of christian atonement
that sheds light on buddhist praxis
I will discuss a bit more the first theme mentioned above,
atonement. The Christian
doctrine of atonement concerns Christ’s redemption of humanity
from sin through
his life, death, and resurrection. Two aspects of this doctrine

have caught my atten-
tion: (1) the agent of atonement for humankind is God in Christ,
not sinful humans.
Since humanity does not even know the full depth of its own
sinful condition, includ-
ing its distorted tendencies of will and judgment, human beings
are powerless to
rectify that condition. (2) There is an objective aspect of God’s
atonement for our sins
through Christ. The redemptive power of God’s action comes
not just through the
subjective personal responses of human beings to such a loving
God, but by Christ’s
self-offering on our behalf.18 God came to us in Christ and
Spirit to do the work of
reconciliation we cannot do for ourselves. This expresses an
objective structure to
reality—both with regard to the fallen condition of humankind
and to the objective
power of God’s grace to reintegrate his creatures back into his
loving purpose. John
Macquarrie, discussing Christ’s salvific work as it reached
completion on the cross,
says: “the classic view [of atonement] includes an objective
side. The self-giving of
Christ is continuous with the self-giving of God, and the whole
work of atonement
is God’s. . . . something needs to be done for man, something
that he is powerless to
do for himself. . . . Here that absolute self-giving, which is the
essence of God, has
THEOLOGIANS 127

appeared in history in the work of Jesus Christ, and this is a
work on behalf of man, a
work of grace.”19
In Tibet, one of the principal practices for progressing on the
bodhisattva path of
awakening is the contemplative exchange of oneself for others,
given vivid expres-
sion in the practice of tong-len, literally the practice of
“offering and receiving.” After
experiencing the power of love and compassion through prior
contemplative cultiva-
tions, the practitioner takes that power into the tong-len
contemplative pattern of
offering and receiving. From compassion, one imaginatively
takes the sufferings of
beings upon oneself, into the empty nature of one’s mind. From
there, out of love, one
imaginatively offers them all of one’s well-being, resources,
and positive capacities.20
There is a tendency in some Buddhist discussions of tong-len to
articulate it as a
technique to become more compassionate through the effortful
use of imagination. In
this articulation, the agent of tong-len is the ego-centered
human being who is learn-
ing to reverse her ego orientation by reconditioning subjective
patterns of her mind
toward greater love and compassion for beings. This is true as
far as it goes. But from
the perspective of my own tradition, it doesn’t capture the fuller
Buddhist ontology
behind tong-len, which Christian reflections on the agency and
the objective dimen-

sion of atonement help point out.
In the contemplative understanding of my tradition, Tibetan
Nyingma, the ulti-
mate agent of tong-len is the awakening mind of enlightenment
(bodhicitta) that has
been hidden within the human being, the innate Buddha
awareness that is the infinite
cognizant ground and backdrop of all our experiences. Buddha
awareness (dharmak ya,
rigpa) is our deepest nature, but has been obscured by the
conditioned patterning of
our ego-centered thought and reaction. The pattern of tong-len
helps reconform the
person to her deeper nature, bringing out her innate capacity of
enlightened response,
of compassion and love for beings as her greater self. When
engaged in depth, tong-len
flows progressively more spontaneously from the empty-
cognizant ground of one’s
being, taking the world’s delusions and sufferings back into that
ground, and from
that place of oneness with the Buddhas, blessing beings. The
liberating power that
tong-len unleashes gradually incorporates the practitioner into
the body of the Bud-
dhas by drawing her into the stream of their enlightened
activity. From this perspec-
tive, it would not be correct to say that the transformative
power of the practice comes
just from reconditioning the subjectivity of the practitioner, as
if the ego-centered
personality were the primary agent of the practice. The ultimate
agent of tong-len,
gradually discovered from within its practice, is innate
Buddhahood (dharmak ya),

which works in and through the practitioner from beyond her
ego-centered mind, to
do what is not possible for that mind.
This is not to say that tong-len, though broadly analogous in its
pattern of exchang-
ing self for others, soteriologically equates with the cross of
Christ. Each such concept
is embedded in its own framework of doctrinal understanding
that differs founda-
tionally from that of the other tradition. But because the
similarities are embedded
in such radically different worldviews, elements of Christian
reflection on subjective
and objective aspects of salvation both reveal analogous
tensions in Buddhist tradi-
tion and shine new light upon them for me—deepening my
Buddhist understanding
and practice.21
where does the light of interreligious understanding come from?
It seems to me that the ideas and words that Christians employ
in their theological
reflections, of themselves, are not what shed so much light for
me on Buddhist under-
standing, since no Christian with whom I am in dialogue
(contemporary or ancient)
has the expertise to know how so profoundly to inform my
Buddhist worldview.
Rather, it feels as though the deepest reality that my own

tradition engages, Buddha-
hood, dharmak ya, communicates aspects of truth to me in my
own religious location
through the religious other, illumining elements of my tradition
in surprising ways
beyond anyone’s planning. Buddhahood can do this, it is taught
in my tradition,
because the infinite mind of the Buddhas is undivided from the
empty, cognizant
ground of persons.22 Meanwhile, Christian dialogue partners I
have known have said
analogous things about their dialogical learning from Buddhism.
It is as if, they say,
the Spirit of God is teaching them through the interreligious
encounter with Buddhist
thought or practice.
In light of all that has been said thus far, a further question
arises for me toward
developing a Buddhist theology of religions that would support
interreligious learn-
ing: How to give due weight to these two poles: (1) to my
inherited Buddhist under-
standing that different kinds of path lead to different ends, with
the fullest soterio-
logical end involving a stable, non-dual awareness of the empty
nature of all things,
without which the deepest roots of inner bondage are not cut;
and (2) my experience
that Christian theologians who are unacquainted with, even
uninterested in, such
teachings of emptiness can function as revelatory sources for
my Buddhist under-
standing and path. How can both those poles be adequately
held? Some elements
of theologian Mark Heim’s theology of religions have begun to

help me to navigate
those poles.
learning with and from a christian colleague
In developing his own distinctive theology of religions,
Christian theologian Mark
Heim has argued that people of different religions engage the
same ultimate real-
ity, which is endowed with many aspects, qualities, and
potencies—the trinitarian
God for Heim, Buddhahood for me.23 Through differing
frameworks of thought and
practice, different religious traditions direct the attention of
their practitioners more
intensively to certain qualities of that one ultimate ground than
to others. Since peo-
ple of different religious frameworks engage different qualities
of the same ultimate
reality with greater intensity, they would be expected to achieve
different fulfillments
from their practice—different soteriological results. And
because they pay primary
attention to differing aspects of ultimate reality, they integrate
its qualities differ-
ently in their realization of it.24
These points by Heim accord with the two Buddhist principles
summarized in
THEOLOGIANS 129
section IV, and also nuance them. On the one hand, from the

perspective of my Bud-
dhist tradition, the deepest ground of liberating truth, which I
call Buddhahood and
Christians call God, in its power to communicate transcends
established expectations
of all religious traditions including Buddhism. On the other
hand, also essential to
Buddhists is the principle that different kinds of path lead to
different results, and it
behooves the Buddha’s followers critically to investigate any
proposed framework of
belief and practice for liberating efficacy, without assuming all
such frameworks sup-
port the same soteriological result.
Implied in Heim’s approach, I believe, is the understanding that
conceptual
frameworks distinctive of each religious tradition are both
necessary and inherently
limiting. They are necessary to establish systematic religious
understandings that
inform all practices and to provide a conceptual container that
receives the findings of
practice experience to make them accessible to future
generations. A conceptual map
of soteriological ground, path, and result is essential to inform
each stage of practice
in any religious tradition. It is the framework based upon which
practitioners are pre-
pared to engage even nonconceptual ways of practice, such as
the nondual meditations
of Tibet or apophatic Christian modes of contemplation. But any
conceptual frame-
work (whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist) is also limited,
because in the very act of
pointing our attention to particular areas of understanding and

experience it lessens
our attention to other areas. In addition, all such conceptual
frameworks are limited
by historical and cultural conditioning of which none of us are
ever fully aware.25
When we relate the Buddhist principles of section 4, and
examples of Buddhist-
Christian learning in sections 5 and 6, to Heim’s suggestions
above, further light is
shed on my experience of interreligious learning. A Buddhist
conceptual framework
of belief and practice, by focusing my attention on certain
aspects of reality in a
certain way, both increases my receptivity to those aspects and
implicitly prevents
my fuller attention to other aspects, which Christian theologians
with a different
religious orientation and practice may engage more fully. The
same is true for prac-
titioners of other religions. For this reason, people of each
tradition have much to
learn from religious others, precisely because of their otherness.
Religious others may
be empowered through their framework of practice to know
certain aspects of ulti-
mate reality in greater depth than one may yet know through
one’s own tradition. An
implication of this is that we are driven by the ultimate reality
that grounds our own
religious understanding to the religious other for further
teaching, further revelation.
A sign of becoming more intimate with Buddhahood or God in
this view would
be a growing tendency for you to view others who are deeply

formed by their tradi-
tions as potential religious teachers—not because you have
abandoned your tradition
but precisely the opposite. To become more receptive to
ultimate reality through your
tradition is to be made increasingly attentive to the voice of that
reality as it makes
itself heard through other religious frameworks. Thus, as a
Tibetan Buddhist, elements
of Christian teaching can function for me like an encounter with
a profound Tibetan
lama—they interrupt my established preconceptions to allow
reality to speak afresh,
to make more of itself known to me in my own religious
location.
At the same time, from this perspective, there is no reason to
assume that different
frameworks of belief and practice lead to the same
soteriological result. For example,
Mark Heim, operating within a Christian framework,
understands the fullest spiritual
fulfillment to be deepest communion with God in Christ, a
dualistic communion. I,
operating within a Buddhist framework, understand it to be
fullest realization of the
nondual wisdom and compassion of Buddhahood. These
different understandings are
based in different systems of doctrine and practice, and the
religious experiences they
inform and express need not be equated. Nor can I step out of

my own conditioned,
finite religious perspective to fully understand and rank the
possible fulfillments of
other world religions (or even of other Buddhist traditions).
There may be individuals
in other traditions whose beliefs and practices function in ways
that deeply free them
from inner causes of suffering beyond what I know, beyond how
my own historically
conditioned tradition has conceptualized what’s possible.
As a follower of the Buddha I am required to maintain an
exploratory perspec-
tive on practice and result that asks critical questions both of
non-Buddhists and
Buddhists—how might these beliefs and practices inhibit or
support liberation? At
the same time, based on all that has been said above, as a
follower of the Buddha, it
behooves me to learn from religious others—because their lens
on reality may permit
them greater intimacy with aspects of it and because elements
of their understanding
may interrupt reified elements of my own in importantly
informing ways.
Even when Mark Heim and I disagree about fullest spiritual
results, we are moti-
vated to listen deeply to each other for further learning in and
through our differences,
since the ultimate ground of our traditions can teach each of us
more by means of the
other’s perspective. Indeed, it is because we inhabit such
different worldviews that
such fresh revelation may come through the other. This implies
that religious others

in their difference exist not just to be overcome through the
apologetics of one’s own
tradition, but are needed if one is to learn more fully from the
ultimate reality that
grounds one’s tradition. To lose the religious other (by
dismissing him or reducing
him to a straw man of one’s apologetics) would be to lose a
potential religious teacher,
whose different lens on reality uniquely interrupts ways I have
subconsciously mis-
taken my lens on reality for reality.26
Again, from a Buddhist perspective all such explorations in
theology of religions
and comparative theology cannot be divorced from the need to
explore critically
whether beliefs and practices of religions (Buddhist and non-
Buddhist) help cut inner
causes of bondage, evoke our best capacities, release us into our
deepest ground of free-
dom. But for such critical inquiry to be well informed, it needs
a lot of help—from
resources of Buddhist tradition, from current disciplines of
investigation and analysis,
and also from alternative perspectives that only religious others
can provide.27
conclusions
Without compromising my inherited Buddhist focus on specific
forms of practice
leading to specific results whose fullest realization I understand
in Buddhist terms,
I view religious others as deeply engaged with the same
ultimate reality (the same
ultimate ground of experience) that Buddhists engage,

potentially realizing some
THEOLOGIANS 131
aspects of that reality more deeply through their modes of
understanding and prac-
tice than I have yet as a Buddhist because they are not Buddhist.
This would explain
the depth dimension of my experience of inter-religious
learning—as if Buddhahood
were tutoring me through the Christian theologian, showing me
more possibilities
of Buddhist understanding than I had previously seen, more than
my Buddhist for-
mation alone had permitted. What has been said here about
Buddhist learning from
Christians is equally applicable to Buddhist learning from all
other religious others.
This kind of theology of religions has been called “open
inclusivism.”28 The Bud-
dhist open inclusivism articulated here can support Buddhist
ways of engaging in
comparative theology, in interreligious learning. In such work,
we explore what can
be learned from elements of another religion, doing so from
within the perspective
of our own religious worldview. This is done not just to
categorize religious others
within preestablished, unchanging categories of our own
tradition, but to permit new
learning from religious others to inform and enlarge the
understandings of our tradi-

tion. This is done not by turning away from our own tradition
but by learning better
to keep faith with the deepest ground of that tradition, and
through that, to receive
more of what it can only teach us through religious others.
notes
1. These reflections are richly informed by discussions in the
past few years with colleagues
Paul Knitter, Mark Heim, Catherine Cornille, John Thatamanil,
Frank Clooney, Michael
Himes, Wendy Farley, Charles Hallisey, Anantanand
Rambachan, Abraham Velez, Loye Ash-
ton, Leah Weiss Ekstrom, Karen Enriquez, Willa Miller, and
many others, for which I am
grateful.
2. For excellent foundational introductions to methods and
approaches of comparative
theology, see Francis X. Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep
Learning across Religious Borders
(Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010); Francis X. Clooney, ed.,
The New Comparative Theol-
ogy: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation (New
York: T&T Clark, 2010); and James
L. Fredericks, Buddhists and Christians: Through Comparative
Theology to Solidarity (New York:
Orbis, 2004).
3. Catherine Cornille, The Im-Possibility of Interreligious
Dialogue (New York: Crossroad Pub-
lishing, 2008).
4. Heim and Thatamanil have argued this point in oral
presentations to Luce AAR seminar

gatherings in Theologies of Religious Pluralism and
Comparative Theology, 2010. Kiblinger
makes this point convincingly in her article “Relating Theology
of Religions and Comparative
Theology,” in The New Comparative Theology, ed. by Francis
X. Clooney SJ (New York: T&T
Clark, 2010), 24–32.
5. The considerations in this paragraph on the need for a
theology of religions to support
work in comparative theology are developed more fully in
Kiblinger, “Relating Theology,”
24–32.
6. For examples of diverse Buddhist theologies of religion
operative through the history of
Buddhism in Asia, see John Makransky, “Buddhist Perspectives
on Truth in Other Religions:
Past and Present,” Theological Studies 64, no. 2 (2003): 334–
361.7. For fuller discussion of
these points, see John Makransky, “Buddhist Inclusivism:
Reflections toward a Contemporary
Buddhist Theology of Religions,” in Buddhist Attitudes to
Other Religions, ed. by Perry Schmidt-
Leukel (St. Ottilien, Germany: EOS Editions, 2008), 47–68.
8. Some leading formulations of theological pluralism appear in
The Myth of Christian
Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. by
John Hick and Paul F. Knitter (New
York: Maryknoll, 1987) and in The Myth of Religious

Superiority: A Multifaith Exploration, ed. by
Paul F. Knitter (New York: Orbis, 2005). For a Buddhist
critique of theological pluralism, see
Makransky, “Buddhist Inclusivism,” 49–53.
9. For fuller discussion of skillful means as ways of relating to
religious others in early and
later Buddhist traditions, see Makransky, “Buddhist
Perspectives on Truth,” 342–354.
10. Thomas Cleary, trans., The Flower Ornament Scripture: A
Translation of The Avata saka
Sutra (Boston: Shambhala, 1993), 276, 281.
11. See Makransky, “Buddhist Perspectives on Truth,” pp. 346–
354 on alternative ways
the Four Noble Truths have been expressed in Asian cultures,
including noncognitive ways.
See Makransky, “Buddhist Inclusivism,” 53–60 for more on
Buddhahood’s infinite means and
Buddhahood as ultimate source of all religions.
12. “Buddhist Inclusivism,” pp 56–57.
13. See references to Augustine, Francis of Assisi, Jonathan
Edwards, and Gerard Manley
Hopkins on poverty and sacramental vision in Michael J. Himes
and Kenneth R. Himes, Full-
ness of Faith: The Public Significances of Theology (Mahwah,
NJ: Paulist Press, 1993), 110–113.
Also Johann Baptist Metz, Poverty of Spirit, trans. John Drury
(New York: Newman Press,
1968).
14. One sign of deepening refuge in the Buddha is a deepening
reverence for persons in

their innate Buddhaness, their profound dignity and potential.
On pure perception, see Chokyi
Nyima Rinpoche (with David Shlim), Medicine and
Compassion: A Tibetan Lama’s Guidance for
Caregivers (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006), 51–53, 62, 66,
108, 114; John Makransky,
Awakening through Love (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2007),
131–155.
15. New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,
1995), 8: 423–426.
16. J. M. R. Tillard, Flesh of the Church, Flesh of Christ: At the
Source of the Ecclesiology of Com-
munion (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), 6.
17. The perfected form of Buddhahood, referred to as sambh
gak ya in the three Buddha-
body scheme of Mah y na treatises, is understood not just as an
isolated embodiment of
enlightenment but as a “body of communion in the joy of the
dharma,” a supramundane form
that communes with advanced bodhisattvas in the dharma
qualities and energies of immeasur-
able love, wisdom, and joy that radiate to all beings. This is
pictured in numerous Buddha-
realm scenes of Mah y na scriptures and in Asian Buddhist art,
contributing to the develop-
ment of the tantric ma ala. On this see John Makransky,
Buddhahood Embodied (Albany, NY:
SUNY Press, 1997), chaps. 4, 5, and 13; John Makransky,
“Buddhahood and Buddha Bodies”
in Encyclopedia of Buddhism Vol. I, ed. by Robert Buswell
(New York, Macmillan, 2004), pp.
76–79; and David McMahan, Empty Vision (London:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2002) chapters 4 and 5.

Implicit bodhisattva “ecclesiologies” in Mah y na scriptures
include scenes in which bodhi-
sattvas function not just as isolate individuals on individual
paths to enlightenment but as
communal expressions of Buddha activity—many bodhisattvas
performing enlightened activi-
ties throughout numerous realms as one community (bodhisattva
sa gha), thereby functioning
as part of the body of the Buddhas (nirm nak ya) through the
power of their prior vows and
merit, the blessings of the Buddhas (adhi h na, radiance), and
emergent qualities of Bud-
dha nature (tath gata-garbha). For examples of bodhisattvas
depicted in Mah y na s tras as
a communal, “ecclesiological” expression of liberating Buddha
activity, see Makransky, Bud-
dhahood Embodied, 183–184; Edward Conze, trans., The Large
Sutra on Perfect Wisdom (Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1979), 573–643; Burton Watson, trans. The
Lotus Sutra (NY: Colum-
bia Univ., 1993), 190–195; Robert Thurman, trans. The Holy
Teaching of Vimalak rti (Uni-
versity Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1986), 69–
71; Etienne Lamotte, trans.
S ra gamasam dhis tra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress
(London: Curzon, 1998), 159–161;
Cecil Bendall and W. H. D. Rouse, trans. Sik -samuccaya
Compiled by S ntid va (Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1981), 290–306.
18. See, for example, John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian
Theology (New York: Charles
Scribner’s, 1977), 316–325; Paul Tillich, A History of Christian
Thought (New York: Simon &

THEOLOGIANS 133
Schuster, 1968), pp. 165–172, 240–241; Hans Kung, On Being a
Christian (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1968), pp. 419–436; Francis Schussler Fiorenza and
John Galvin, eds., Systematic
Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 1991), 1: 275–297; Keith
Ward, Christianity: A Short Introduction (Oxford, England:
Oneworld, 2000), 56–62.
19. Macquarrie, Principles, 320. Italic emphasis is
Macquarrie’s.
20. For a more detailed explanation of the theory and practice
of tong-len, see, for exam-
ple, Jamgon Kongtrul, The Great Path of Awakening, trans. Ken
McLeod (Boston: Shamb-
hala, 1987); Pema Chodron, Start Where You Are (Boston:
Shambhala, 1994); Dilgo Khyentse
Rinpoche, Enlightened Courage (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1993);
Traleg Kyabgon, The Practice of
Lojong (Boston: Shambhala, 2007); and Makransky, Awakening
through Love, 157–199.
21. My reflections on atonement and Buddhism have been
informed by conversations with
Mark Heim, in the context of his own comparative theological
inquiries into atonement in
light of Buddhism.
22. On this see Nyoshul Khenpo with Lama Surya Das, Natural
Great Perfection (Ithaca, NY:

Snow Lion, 1995); Sogyal Rinpoche, The Tibetan Book of
Living and Dying (New York: Harper
Collins, 2002), 154–176; Chagdud Tulku, Gates to Buddhist
Practice ( Junction City, CA:
Padma Publishing, 2001), 169–192, 247–255; Makransky,
Awakening through Love, 33–68.
23. In this section I draw selectively on just a few of Mark
Heim’s points. I am not adopting
his full theology of religions here.
24. For Mark Heim’s Christian Trinitarian perspective on these
points, see Mark Heim, The
Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s, 2001),
167–168, 174–197, 210–222, 289–295. For a Mah y na Buddhist
perspective on them, see
John Makransky, “Buddha and Christ as Mediators of the
Transcendent: A Buddhist Perspec-
tive,” in Buddhism and Christianity in Dialogue, ed. by Perry
Schmidt-Leukel (Norwich, Nor-
folk, England: SCM Press, 2005), 189–199 and Makransky,
“Buddhist Inclusivism,” 60–65.
25. On the unconscious limitations of historical conditioning,
see Makransky, “Buddhist
Inclusivism,” 58–64.
26. The theme of “interruption”—religious others functioning as
sources of revelation
by interrupting accustomed frameworks of one’s own
tradition—is informed by the work of
Lieven Boeve, Interrupting Tradition: An Essay on Christian
Faith in a Postmodern Context (Lou-
vain: Peters Press, 2003), 163–179. It is also informed by
numerous Asian Buddhist stories of

masters who interrupt accustomed conceptual frameworks of
individuals and institutions by
unexpected modes of teaching or action, so the dharma can be
re-revealed in that moment in
a fresher and fuller way.
27. Parts of this section are much informed by enriching
conversations I have been fortunate
to have with Wendy Farley, Abraham Velez, and Karen
Enriquez.
28. On open inclusivism, see Catherine Cornille, Im-
Possibilisty, 197–204.
Copyright of Buddhist - Christian Studies is the property of
University of Hawaii Press and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011) 119–133. © by University .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from hartrobert670

More from hartrobert670 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011) 119–133. © by University .docx